Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95973-w, published online 16 august 2021


The original version of this Article contained errors.


In the Experiments section, under the subheading ‘Performance’,


“However, the amplification of the peaks |000⟩, |101⟩ and |110⟩ is clearly visible from the processor outcomes”.


now reads:


“However, the amplification of the peaks |000⟩, |011⟩ and |101⟩ is clearly visible from the processor outcomes.”


In addition, under the subheading ‘Factoring N = 21’,


“The measured probability distributions in Fig. 7 are peaked in probability for the outcomes 000 (ϕs = 0), 101 (ϕs = 5), and 110 (ϕs = 6), with ideal probabilities of 0.35, 0.25 and 0.25, respectively.”


now reads:


“The measured probability distributions in Fig. 7 are peaked in probability for the outcomes 000 (ϕs = 0), 011 (ϕs = 3), and 101 (ϕs = 5), with ideal probabilities of 0.35, 0.25 and 0.25, respectively.”


Finally, under the same subheading,


“On the other hand, the continued fraction expansion of ϕ = 6/8 gives {0,1,3/4} and incorrectly gives r = 4 as the order (see Supplementary information VII for details).”


now reads:


“On the other hand, the continued fraction expansion of ϕ = 3/8 also gives r = 3, while adjacent outcomes that have an appreciable but lower probability do not give the correct order, for example ϕ = 6/8 gives {0,1,3/4} and incorrectly gives r = 4 as the order (see Supplementary information VII for details).”


The original Article has been corrected.